Fairly new to Hyper-V but do have some VMware experience. Just installed a new Server 2012R2 Standard server and configured it with Hyper-V role. Have installed one VM server using Server 2012R2 Standard as well; anticipate 1 or 2 additional VM Servers in the future. Both the Host and the VM server have been added to the existing 2003 Domain. The VM server has been promoted to DC and all FSMO roles have been transferred to it. It is planned that the current 2003 DC will be demoted and disconnected once it's application & data have been transferred to new VM server.

I have read that the Host should only run Hyper-V role and nothing else but I am leery of running DC only as virtual. I would like to make the Host a DC and transfer all FSMO roles to it; as well as maintain the VM server as a backup DC. Is this a good idea and license legal? End result will be a domain with one physical server running 1-3 Hyper-V VM servers.

Host was configured with a 150GB logical drive. There is a second 700GB logical drive that runs the current VM and contains the VM files. One gigabit NIC is configured for the host 7 3 gigabit NIC's are teamed and assigned to the VM currently. If/when additional VM servers are added additional storage will be installed and configured as logical drives for each VM as needed.

Thoughts and ideas welcome. Thanks. 

 

Making your Hyper-V Server into a domain controller is not necessary, not supported, will probably cause problems, and will definitely cost you a guest virtualization right. The wheel is very round on virtualized domain controllers and there is nothing to fear from it anymore.

In a small environment, one VM for ADDS/DHCP/DNS is perfect.

Hi Linn,

I agree with Eric, the Hyper-V Host should not have any other roles installed.

It is always a good idea to have a second Domain Controller (either physical or as VM on another Hyper-V Host). Maybe you can re-use the hardware of the old DC.

One more thing: Remember to deactivate the time synchronization feature of the VMs Integration Services for the Domain Controller.

Best Regards,
Jens

Thanks all. Did turn off the time sync. Old hardware is a 10 year old Server 2003 32 bit server. Could probably re-install with Server 2012 64bit and have as a physical DC only but doubt I can get the customer to buy another license. Small construction client that has an application that wants a domain environment. One DC, even a VM, will probably be okay for years.

"Old hardware is a 10 year old Server 2003 32 bit server. Could probably re-install with Server 2012 64bit "

I love your optimism!  First, is the 10 year old server a 64-it server? If not, do not pass Go.  Secondly, I can almost ensure that it is not a supported server platform (look it up on www.windowsservercatalog.com to see if it is listed as supporting 2012).  Not being supported does not mean that it will not work, but if it is not supported there is a high probability that 2012 may not have device drivers for some of the devices on the system.  You might be able to find something to get it to work, but in the end, you still end up with an unsupported system - never know when it will roll over and not play nicely and leave you as the person to debug the issue because there is no support.  If you have the time to play around, it might be an interesting exercise.

 

It's a ML350 G5 with a XEON 5130 dual core @ 2GHZ processor. Maybe not.

I really wouldn't worry about it too much. For these really small companies, a secondary DC is a luxury item. Good backup solutions are what they need to focus on.

You will also have to take in consideration the licensing part, since WS2012R2 Standard allows you to have only VMs on the host, compared to WS2012R2 Datacenter on which you can deploy unlimited VMs on a host with 2 CPUs.

Check the licensing here

• Edited by mike.stoica 9 hours 55 minutes ago

You will also have to take in consideration the licensing part, since WS2012R2 Standard allows you to have only VMs on the host, compared to WS2012R2 Datacenter on which you can deploy unlimited VMs on a host with 2 CPUs.

Check the licensing here

That is misleadingly worded. No copy of WS imposes a VM count limitation. A single license of WS2012R2 Standard allows up to two virtualized instances of WS2012R2 Std or lower on two processors. But the Standard licenses stack. A second license grants another two virtualized instances, etc. For no more guests than this installation looks like it will have, Datacenter would be a lot of wasted money.

Licensing questions should be handled by the entity that will be reselling the licenses.

Eric that is what I got from a discussion with MS Licensing as well. Each Server license allows you to install 2 VM's. If you want more VM's you buy an additional license and 2 more VM's. At some point the Datacenter version becomes more cost effective to use. The caveat they told me was that each license could be tied to only one physical host server. Datacenter could be better with large numbers of VM's and using a high availability model.

Datacenter edition is also hardware bound. I wonder where they were going with that. But, the hardware costs of going HA spike as well.

A Windows Server 2012 Standard allows you two "free" instances of a Windows Server OS installation on that host.  You are not restricted from installing more VMs, but you will need to either provide additional licenses (for Windows) or use open source OSes like Linux.

The Datacenter license allows you an unlimited number of "free" instances of a Windows Server OS on that host. 

What happens on most of these forum discussions is the  mixing of versions, definitions, paraphrasing, and incorrect terminology.

-Hyper-V Server and Windows Server not the same.

-What's included for licensing (licensing restrictions) of VM instances with Windows Server versions is not the same as an actual restriction from installing an OS

Eric that is what I got from a discussion with MS Licensing as well. Each Server license allows you to install 2 VM's. If you want more VM's you buy an additional license and 2 more VM's. At some point the Datacenter version becomes more cost effective to use. The caveat they told me was that each license could be tied to only one physical host server. Datacenter could be better with large numbers of VM's and using a high availability model.

If you want more "Windows" VMs you buy additional licenses.  No where does it state you are restricted to only 2.  It says you are entitled to 2 virtual OSEs if you're only running the Hyper-V service on the host.

Wouldn't say that is a misleadingly word. If you compare the costs of additional license needed for a VM you might end up that Datacenter is more suitable, but that depends on the number of the VMs that will be needed in the future. I agree that for the current implementation WS2012R2 Standard is ok, but when you implement/design something you should take in consideration future needs or how the business might develop